that doesn't mean there's any guarantee of the result and to use the debt ceiling as a lever i think is a very serious mistake. after the credit of this country was downgraded, a senior director of standard & poor's -- this was right after it -- said the following about american political institutions that they were undermined -- i quote -- that people in the political arena were even talking about a potential default. and essentially this bill does that. and if i might say to mr. ryan, we're on the same floor. we talk to each other a lot anyway. i think it will be helpful in

regular order if there were a budget brought to the floor of the house that had bipartisan support and was a product of regular order with strong bipartisan support in the budget committee and on the floor. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> we look forward to your support. \[laughter] >> mr. ryan. >> participation. >> a new issue has just been brought up by the gentleman and that is perhaps the timing, do you believe that this is timely and that you've given people an opportunity rather than waiting until the last minute and thus getting to a deadline and having to react? >> mr. levin and i are friends. >> he and i are friends. >> our intention, as before, is to write a committee mark, bring it to the committee, entertain probably at the 40 or so amendments, some of which we've taken in the past, and then to bring a product out of

committee. there may be irreconcilable differences. that's the way things ought to be. there was one budget that did get a bipartisan vote. didn't get many votes. it was cooper and latourette and a few others. there was some bipartisan votes. got 35 votes or something like that. i hope it happens in this congress. there may be a moment where we'll have irreconcilable differences on how to solve these problems. at least in the house we brought budgets. mr. van hollen, to his credit, brought a budget and brought it to the floor, to his credit. that didn't happen in the senate. they didn't even attempt to do that. so the senate hasn't done that. all we're saying is let's get

the senate in the game to do that so we can debate how to fix a problem, not whether we are going to try to fix a problem. >> mr. chairman, i have been handed a note saying i need to go to another for forum. >> i recognize that. and the gentlewoman, ms. slaughter, hears that. >> i should be there too. >> yeah, i'm next. i'll talk long so that you -- >> let me ask very quickly if someone has a question for mr. levin before he goes. and anyone -- >> you have to leave. then i would not stand in the way of democracy. >> i think you'll give me leave. and the chairman will? >> well, as always, we want to

reserve the right, as we agree with you, to at least give our members an equal shot and i see no member necessarily that has a question. >> i'll try to come back if you're still in session. >> the gentleman will be considered excused at this point then. >> thank you. >> ms. foxx. >> the resolution -- the bill that's been brought to us today, and i don't really want to repeat or ask chairman ryan or chairwoman miller to repeat the things that they said, but i do think it's important that we highlight the fact that the house, under republican leadership, has been adopting a budget. we have the last two years. and the senate has not. and there is a law that says we

are to adopt a budget. chairman ryan pointed out that the president's folks have said they will not adhere to the law again this year. my recollection is they were late last year. i think they submitted a budget but my recollection is they were late last year. i may be not correct on that. >> they submitted a budget. they missed the deadline three out of four times. >> ok. herethink what's important is we are the lawmakers, and it's important that we be good role models for the rest of the country. and we certainly are cast gaited on an individual level when we break the law. some people have. some inadvertently. some purposefully. but i think it's very important that we follow the law. so i think it's important that

we continue to point this out to the american people and i'm very pleased that we're going to be doing this. raising the debt ceiling is a very, very serious issue. and we don't do this lightly. nobody i think should do it lightly. i believe that the way we are going to be doing this will help us move forward with working on the budget. i think you don't get the baseline numbers to -- until when, mr. ryan? >> the c.b.o. is late because of the end of the year fiscal issues. they anticipate getting their january baseline updated on february 4. typically you have a budget resolution off of c.b.o.'s rescore of the president's submitted budget. the president's budget is coming late. the administration has not said when they are going to submit a budget, so we don't know when c.b.o. will have the opportunity

to score it. usually takes about three weeks to score it. then you get your final baseline with what you normally write your budget. so that's the issue here. timing. but since c.b.o. will give us their newer baseline, we call the january baseline, in february, that gives us something to start with. >> and i read an article the other day that says one of the things that resulted as -- has come about is the result of what we did january 1, i guess it was, was that we should not be having arguments about baseline. that we hope that's been cleared up and that will be a useful thing going forward. i know it is a difficult thing for you to explain and me to explain sometimes to people, but i just want to applaud you all for what you're doing and want to thank chairwoman miller for coming. and mr. brady, it's always nice

to see you. thank you very much. i yield back. >> ms. slaughter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to put the administration's statement of policy in the record. >> without objection. >> and you know, we all started out, everybody's friends. you are friends with sandy. and i want to be your friend. i got to tell you, friends, i am not sure what it is we're doing here today. this was filed yesterday morning, 7:00 on inauguration day. i read the article, which i assume was -- everything i heard was the father of this idea. and -- but the fact is the democrat party has been totally left out of this. we keep going down the road here, sort of lurching and jerking about. sort of like plan b. leaving us out, calling us up to the rules committee where we all sit up here, sitting up higher than everybody else, looking so we really know what's going on. we really have about had it.

there is nothing called regular order. we talk about it all the time. we talk about budgets being law. we read it this week. this is a step too far for me. i really think what you're doing here, while i appreciate it as well as i think everybody else, on my side of the committee, that the idea of dollar for dollar business seems to be gone. we're glad for that i'm not really clear. we pass the law. we think that the senate will pass the same bill. is that the same idea? we believe that will happen? >> that's how a legislative process works. the house passes bail. the senate acts. and if they don't act you go to a conference committee. >> there's been no committee hearings, no public hearing, no discussion. >> there is a hearing right now on ways and means. >> i'm assuming you are not

having the conversations with the senate. >> we have. this bill came from a member on your side of the aisle, mr. cooper. it came -- the decision was before that article. i really think what you'rei rear we had decided this is a better course of action. we felt the bipartisan bill that mr. cooper, the democrat, authored was a sound way forward and that's why we included the cooper legislation with a short-term debt limit extension. >> but given the importance of this, i'd like to know what kind of negotiations you've had with the senate. we don't know if the senate will pass this or not. i said that the white house supports a short-term extension. >> have they've been discussed -- >> they've been sent the legislation. i don't know what the senate will do. but that's -- i think that happens fairly often. i don't know if every bill we

pass through here we first have to wait for the senate to say that they will support it and then we pass it, i don't think that's how the legislative process works. i think -- we don't know if the senate will pass it or not. >> i think we're down to the alice in wonderland piece, that we pretend that the legislative process are working. you and i both know that it is not. something like this we would have had committee hearings. >> the goal is to get the legislative process working. >> you know, we are perfectly willing, even eager here as part of the congress of the united states to be part of what you're doing. >> that's -- >> we never know. it's sort of dropped in on us, parachuted in from someplace, telegraphed in the newspaper, maybe. but our participation in this, i understand it, we were sort of talking by ourselves. we didn't quite understand the paid piece. if we pass a budget, house members gets paid, is that right? >> that's right. each chamber has the

responsibility to pass a budget through their chamber. >> and the senate -- >> and the pay is in escrow until they do that. after the statutory deadline. >> so the house will be treated -- >> the house is in control of its own fate. the senate of theirs. so the frustration that is expressed in this legislation is the fact that our federal government has gone without a budget for almost four years. it is that the senate -- yes, your party is in control of the budget -- the senate has chosen not -- >> we are talking about raising the debt limit here. we are not talking about the budget. >> that's what this legislation does. >> all right. you've done that. >> and this legislation is authored by a democrat here in the house. >> the fact of the matter is that there has been no regular order on this, and we've gotten used to -- we went through plan b. there was no regular order on that and you know how that turned out. you remember -- >> are you talking about the fiscal cliff? >> on the fiscal cliff. >> there are other plan b's but i understand -- >> there are a lot of plan b's. i just want to know which one

you are talking about. >> let me reiterate that we would be more than happy to join in your process here. maybe even give you a great idea every now and then. maybe something we can all work together on. once again, the house of representatives would be the people's house, and all the people sent to serve here will be able to participate in it. we long for that day. >> i appreciate that. i had a conversation with mr. cooper this morning which was we saw a democrat with a piece of legislation that we thought was a good idea. that's why this includes that legislation. >> well, it would have been nice if some of the rest of us heard about it. we would have -- >> i don't know what to say about that. >> there's not much we can say about it today. i'm sure you have the votes to pass it and it will go out of here ok. the strongest terms i can, the idea of continually coming up here and sitting here with something that was just handed

to us and trying to pretend that we're part of the process here is -- i just can't do that any more. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. in defense of me asking you three or four as it were to come up here, i'm delighted that we did this now rather than waiting until the very end because, mr. ryan, i don't even know -- and you don't have to respond to this -- but i don't know what day we have to have it ready. and so i viewed that as committee chairman, speaking with each other, including our republican leadership, that we were trying to do the correct thing and to make sure the administration read us as clear. this is not a poison pill. this would be something that the senate would have to agree to and public comments out of the senate by senate democrats have indicated the willingness to accept it. >> right. that's one of the reasons we are doing it now because we don't want to bring it to brinksmanship. the statement of administration policies, snap, we use acronyms

around here, we don't know what the x date is, meaning the date when the borrowing money is run out. it's estimated that that occurs sometime between february 15 and march 15, but we don't know when that is. we don't want to test it. that's why we're doing this now. >> i applaud chairman camp and you and each of you for being here today. mr. cole. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that. just one question to any of you that might care to take it up. i heard a number of people that expressed concerns about the constitutionality of the pay provisions. i know, mr. chairman, you looked into that but i invite either two gentlemen to comment as well. can you elaborate on that a little bit, what kind of research you've done to ensure this is within the constitution? >> ok.

i -- i will preface my statement by reminding you i am not a constitutional attorney. i have my notes from my constitutional attorneys. >> that gives me more confidence. >> again, you know, james madison, obviously, proposing the 27th amendment, 1789, and i have the attorneys go through and they agree, our side, anyway, the attorneys agrees it applies to varying -- varying being the operative phrase -- of the compensation. it's interesting. they looked at a couple cites -- couple of lawsuits that have been before the supremes, about this issue. one was about the cola provisions that the congress automatically gets some increases, etc., and there was another one that was brought by a congressman, bob schaefer. some of you might recall him. it was before my time. on the grounds that -- let's see -- 27th amendment. anyway, i won't go through all the weeds on that.

again, it spoke to the varying. they decided that varying the compensation is really the operative phrase, as i say, with that. so our attorneys in the housed a minute, on our side, agree -- house admin, on our side, there is no -- as long as you pay members at the end -- i should say -- by the end of the 113th congress or obviously we would like to have this negated completely by having the senate pass a budget, the house pass a budget, senate pass a budget, as required by law and on time. so as i've talked to them, i feel pretty good about the constitutionality of the 27th amendment and how it applies to this. i would, if i could, make a couple other comments. i do think it's interesting in the spirit of bipartisanship, as you've pointed out, this was a piece of legislation for the most part pretty much mirrors what was introduced in the 112th with -- by a democrat with several other democratic

co-sponsors as well as republicans here. i sort of feel like this is an effort at a bipartisan -- bipartisanship. i know sandy had to leave. we were talking about the ratings agencies and what happened when we were downgraded during the last debt ceiling debate. i thought it was interesting reading the executive management report from the ratings agency that also pointed to the congress that one of the reasons -- huge reason for the downgrade, they didn't feel that the congress had the political will to address the spending crisis that we are in either. so that was also a big part of the downgrade of our credit rating. now i think, you know, we are trying to exercise the political will to address our spending by having a budget which you can't really talk about appropriation bills and all of these kinds of things in my mind having continuing

resolutions to fund the government forever is unsustainable. you need to pass a budget to begin with a foundation. >> mr. cole, i also talked to attorneys, our attorneys, some other attorneys, not just on our staff and i tell them, talk to me like i can understand you. because they talk too much legal lease. i ask them, if i get a paycheck in my account every month and i don't get that paycheck in my account, so whenever it may come, at the end of the year, that's varying. their opinion, that could be. they didn't say it was. they said it could be that could violate the 27th amendment because they're varying something. not coming this month. coming at the end of the year. the other thing i would like to -- don't understand -- and i want to tell you like i think and how it is.

we are kind of like trying to not punish but penalize the other side. the senate. because they haven't acted. so what we're doing is drafting legislation that's going to make our side, whether we pass or maybe sometimes not pass a budget, and we're going to punish, not punish. maybe penalize our side by not getting a payroll or paycheck until the end of the year. now i'm probably not -- i think i'm talking maybe by my own knowledge, i don't think it hurts any of the united states senators. but a mayor, one of our 435 members here, because some of them i know may have to make a mortgage payment, maybe have to make a car payment, maybe have to make an insurance payment or some type of payment. and they may not be able to talk to their bank or whoever they might be, can you wait until the end of the year? i can show you my escrow account. i'm probably thinking we'll pass a budget in the house, so maybe it might not happen to us. it may not bother the other side too much.

that's my opinion. >> mr. ryan, do you have any thoughts on this? >> well, just to state for the record, it's not meant to punish people for past behavior. this is meant to get congress back to doing its job, to simply following the law to budgeting. we have a fiscal crisis. we are racking up trillion- dollar deficits. this is not a republican against democrat thing. it's a math thing. this debt crisis is coming because of the debt that is piling up. all of the independent fiscal authorities tell us this. the rating agencies downgrade us because they think our political system is broken at an impasse. therefore, no solution is occurring. and our argument is the way to break that impasse is to start budgeting. the law says we should budget. we should follow the law. we have disagreements on how to budget. but at least we ought to come to the table with each of our

individuals and our plans. if you're ever going to get to a solution, what usually happens under what we call regular order is we pass our budget vision, the other side passes their budget vision, and then we bring ideas to the table and we start negotiating. that hasn't happened for four years because the senate has chosen not to even begin this process. and so we think we are advancing the goal of restoring fiscal discipline to our federal government by just getting congress, the house and the senate, to begin to follow the budgeting law again to budget. now at the end of the day we hope this will result in getting a down payment on our debt problem so that we can continue to meet the obligations of our seniors, of our military, of the people who are living on the safety net, of the vulnerable, of the bond markets so we can keep interest rates low so we can make sure we don't hurt our economy. >> i want to command -- commend

you on the effort of people to just put out a budget. with all due respect on my friends on the other side, last year they were in majority, they chose not to do that. they chose thinking it would provide political cover. it didn't. i think that's what's gone "encore booknotes" the senate side. i think it's a political calculation that somehow this will spare some of our members from difficult votes. i commend you for developing a difficult budget and getting your colleagues to vote on it and it was a legitimate issue in the campaign. i have no problem with that. i think it's an appropriate place to have the discussion. you come, you vote, we go have a campaign. that helps the country clarify the issues. we move on. the house has fulfilled its responsibility in that regard in the last two years and went through the fire in the election. i think that's fair. the senate just simply has not. and it is discouraging. you know, it just takes 51 votes.

that's all it takes over there. i actually heard commentators tell us, oh, no, it takes 60. it takes no such thing. it just takes 51 votes where the majority now has 55 and at one point had 59 and was unable to -- unwilling, i should say, get 51 where you got over 228 of our members do last year which was actually vote on a budget going into an election year. mr. chairman, i'm delighted to see legs like this. i do think there are legitimate constitutional questions. i think those we'll have a vigorous discussion about that in the next couple of days. i'm comforted by some of a campaign. the precedence you cite, mr. chairman. at the end of the day, this is about getting us to do our jobs. there isn't a member up here that wouldn't tell you it really is our obligation to write a budget. again, our friends in the majority did not. i'm really happy to see the minority, they have chosen to do so. i think it's actually a very good thing. i can tell you when we were in the minority, getting a budget

and laying out there was good for us politically. it's the right thing to do. i think our friends in the senate need to follow course. and just simply present a budget that will clarify the issues. i think it will help us avoid future debt ceiling crises if we know we got some manageable plan and each side has staked out a position, we'll find some commonality, no doubt,nd i think we'll move forward. you know, until the senate actually gets in the game i don't think that's going to happen and i do think that's playing fast and loose for the people. i commend you very much. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you very much, mr. cole. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, you talked at the very beginning of your remarks about a deliberate tif process, how important that was. and mr. ryan talked about regular order. we're all for that, but we're beginning not with a deliberative process and this is not regular order. this is not the product of a

deliberation in the ways and means committee and hearings and markups. this really is kind of a back room deal that -- i first read about it when you were on your retreat. so we begin on that note, and i think one way to avoid that characterization would be to agree to what mr. brady asked for is an open rule. i'd ask both of you, mrs. miller, mr. ryan, whether or not you would favor an open rule here so we can have a deliberative process so that, you know, members who quite frankly haven't even read this yet because of, again, yesterday when you dropped it in, it was inauguration day, martin luther king's birthday. there are questions about constitutionality that people who are not constitutional experts are trying to grabble with. so would you be in favor of bringing this to the floor under an open rule tomorrow? >> as a fellow chairman, i'll defer to this chairman. i don't want to tell mr. chairman how to run his

committee because a lot of times there are other issues that you just don't know about to take into consideration. >> does -- do you have an opinion on whether this should be an open or closed rule? >> i also will defer to your rules committee to debate afterward. that's why you have this committee. >> i'm not particularly surprised by your answer. but i think it's an important point to make. and the other thing is, you know, -- you know, i'm as frustrated with the united states senate as anybody on this committee. but i think it is a little bit disingenuous to say, lay the entire blame for where we are at the feet of the united states senate. over the last year when speaker boehner and the president were close to an agreement, the speaker walked away because members in your own conference did not want to compromise.

it would have been better to approach this in a bipartisan way. to engage in leadership of your party and i engage our leadership to go through a committee process, where you did have a bipartisan -- you mentioned this was mr. cooper's idea. i looked up the bill, the bill you are basing this on and mr. cooper didn't mention the debt ceiling and another bill, said if we default on our debts, congressional pay is the last thing that gets resolved. so this is different than that. i go on record, i don't believe we should be politicizing and

happy we aren't going to default immediately because we are going to kick the can down the road. but i'm tired by governing by gimmicks. then't know if withholding pay of senators is going to be a big deal, but that's not the way this process should work. it shouldn't be about gimmicks or crisis to crisis. if we want to start off on the right foot, i think it would be important for this committee to have an open rule given the fact that this -- this is being brought to the floor -- i will vote for an open rule but i'm hoping you can convince those guys to vote for an open rule. i guess you won't help me. ok, anyway, i thank you for your

testimony and look forward to seeing you tomorrow on the floor. >> i'm late, could you summarize what has happened already? [laughter] so we are still a tradition. >> we have had four witnesses today and two that agree with each other and two that disagree. >> we are still in a transition out here? >> let me do this quickly, just in the short time we have been here, presuppositions of what we will or will not do. we haven't done a budget yet for this year. >> that's correct. >> this doesn't presuppose the budget or whether or not the senate will or will not. it says there has to be a budget and in order to do that - >> when i was an accounting, mowed lawns, i got paid.

if i didn't do the work, i didn't get paid. if you work, you get paid. now, we have constitutional issues. >> more important issue. after i wrote three more letters that came in over the weekend, i get my pay for life. as soon as i am elected for the first time. however, for the record, the key issue is this says we get a budget and doesn't presuppose

what that budget is and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. bishop. two other points, one, we don't know when the actual date is. we presuppose the work that needs to be done so we can work at this also, because we place on the senate the same thing we place ourselves, a responsibility to get this done and as mr. ryan has said he will produce that budget accordingly. >> thank you very much. i thank all of our witnesses >> our friends and colleagues

must be amused by this exercise. the 113th congress is starting with the way the 112th congress ended. during the summer, i made the comment that if kicking the can down the road, which is what we're doing, was an olympic sport, then the united states congress, and by that i meant the senate and the house would win gold, silver, bronze and aluminum, because we have this habit of kicking the can down the road. the republican philosophy seems to be, why do now what we can do later and why do later what we can even do later.

this isn't no way to address our fiscal challenges and no way to rule the economy. you lost a lot either in the koch brothers and the tea party group they fund has come out against using the debt ceiling as leverage rather than holding it hostage. and yet the republican congress is still in turmoil over whether this is the right thing to do. i was fascinated by mrs. the

bill suspends the debt ceiling decision until may. miller's comments regarding the escrow and whether or not interest would be undertaken. i was looking at the 401k maneuver for $150 billion taken out of the 401k plan of congress and the federal employees. and the first thing that came to my mind is, if you are going to take $150 billion out and i don't have many money over there, but you don't get interest. it ain't but a nickel, but a penny and somehow or another that seems to be a problem here as well. but being out of sight doesn't mean being out of mind. and the republicans can't will away our national responsibilities just because it conflicts with the ideology of your more extreme members.

i imagine come may, my friends on the other side will find another loophole that allows them to pay off the debt ceiling for another three months. we emerge from almost crisis to almost crisis through the next year while at the same time you notorious on the other side for complaining that the problem with our economy is uncertainty. i have heard that many times than a little bit both here in this institution and in the rules committee and those that were on the political trail. now i agree that continuously threatening to fulfill our national obligations is a serious breach of economic uncertainty. but republicans seem to be attracted to this kind of dangerous gimmicks to act

seriously to act on the full faith and credit of the united states. until they do, i suspect that we'll have a lot more meetings on this very issue. now as a lawyer, not a constitutional scholar, having made a lot of decisions about constitutionality as a federal judge and when i went on the bench, i was accused of being a judicial activist. and i was thrown off the bench. i was accused of being a judicial activist. and i guess that's compared to strict constructionist. and if there was ever a case, the 27th amendment was not ultimately ratified until 1999.

james madison proposed it in 1789 and 39 states eventually ratified. and 1992 is not just so long ago, so it's real easy to read, it says no law, no law, with a comma varying and this is where mr. brady must have tagged the word varying the compensation for the senators and representatives shall take effect until a election of representatives shall have intervened. we just got over one and we can't do nothing until we have another one, if you read it as strict construction. but no law.

now we have had some cases -- we had boehner versus anderson, district court of appeals case where we were talking about the cost of living adjustment under the ethics provision. there was another case -- >> yield for one moment, please. the gentleman is expected to address our conference at 4:00. i would like to ask unanimous consent that as we allow him to leave -- i wanted to give you a chance before i excuse chairman ryan if you have a question for him. >> i will talk to paul about my question. >> the gentleman, mr. ryan, is excused. the gentlewoman would also like

to take that opportunity. >> [indiscernible] [laughter] >> we may or may not want to have that debate. the gentlewoman seeks to be excused and i would allow based on unanimous consent to do that. the gentleman which is to leave on his own, i would understand that. the gentleman would be excused. thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> i would like to say if we look at federal opinions for added instruction, the shape of the content in the 1992 case,

there has been the supreme court opinion with reference to this varying business and all of the federal law seems to deal with the cost of living increase. what they propose is, first off, if i take paul ryan's comment that it will cause them to not be paid for not working, that makes an absolutely dumb assertion and assumption that the senate does not work. it is dysfunctional, but they go to work. we will withhold their pay because they have not had a budget? then i guess we will withhold their pay because there are 95 federal -- in this country that are not undertaken.

-- vacancies in this country that are not undertaken. i guess all the work they have been doing trying to confirm the president's appointees is not work. then the thing that goes ignored is how powerful any one senator is. they can hold up anything. all we are doing, we are kicking this can metaphorically. it's disappointing, mr. chairman that there was no hearing on this measure. there was a comment that we would be transparent and do these things and not backroom deals, well this is a back room deal. it came from somewhere. it did not come from the committee structure. it did not come from what we referred to as regular order. rule.

when i came here, i was surprised how much republicans are on radio at that time arguing about democrats not allowing for open rules. democrats and republicans since that time have done the same thing. at some point, we have to let the congress work at its will. until we do that and stop playing games, we are dealing with this nation. -- this nation's full faith and credit. we should not be tying our debt ceiling to an ideological concept about budgets that everybody knows and all of us has had a hand in for political purposes at some time. thank you. >> i might also note about half this congress is two terms or less. we listen to our members who

want to have a chance to make sure we did look at the budget moving floor. -- moving forward. we were listening to a number of our members and believe before we have to act that we know what we are doing and offer the same challenge to ourselves. >> may i ask you a question? have you ever voted for a continuing resolution? >> i have. >> we all do it. >> the same opportunity exists for anybody who votes as they will choose. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. i agree with my colleague from florida. long past. i would tell him we are in a crisis and the chairman of budget committee, we are still here.

the last cycle with the economist from the left and the economist from the right. economist from the left says you are two years away from a serious debt crisis and the congressman from the left said it was five years away but it was a most certain reckoning of fiscal policies for both parties from decade to decade. i tell you, i am as much of a fan of open rules as anybody. i am proud of this committee brought them back for appropriation bills. i hope that is a tradition the chairman will continue. i am sure he will. but this back room deal is the one that the ranking member introduced and the president said he would not oppose hr-35.

--hr-325. the same one the senator and majority leader harry reid praise the house for taking up and moving forward. this budget issue is a serious challenge. go back and look at what we did in the budget control act, august 2011. 95 democrats voted yes and 95 voted no. it was about as bipartisan a bill as folks could have come up with. it made a real turn in the spending curbs. i was proud to support that bill. we can either try to jam something through in 3.5 weeks. we do not have the votes on our side to pass a debt ceiling that does nothing about the real problem, nothing to deal with the real crisis, the certain crisis.

it is an irresponsible thing to do, to kick that can down the road. what we have been able to do is to say, let's give ourselves four months for a serious budget cycle, with the senate says they want to pass a budget for the first time in four years, and see where our priorities are, our values are, and we can come together and work on something. i am sad our witnesses have left us, but i am glad they were able to testify to the opportunities this provides. you look for those numbers of things the president agrees on, the senate agrees on, and the house agrees on, they are few and far between. i hope this is ceased to mark. -- i hope the house will seize this one tomorrow. >> there has been discussion about why we are here at this time. i chose that we could probably take a gamble or a risk and no some of our members may have to go.

i apologize. they will be representing themselves to their appropriate bodies. i think you, gentlemen. >> i do appreciate you did not have this at midnight to talk about this issue. [laughter] >> it was a passing[laughter] >> i think members on both side of the aisle appreciate that. my good friend from georgia mentioned it, but the debt crisis that we have, both sides agree to it. when we start talking about how you actually resolved it, those on the left said we need to raise taxes. they got partially what they

wanted when the tax went up on individuals. they got part of what they wanted. the other part is really, truly spending reduction. i know the present not -- the president does not agree. but we do. when those agencies talked about our underpining as it relates to our overall health of our economy, he talked about congress's in the bill --raise revenue. the other was to get our spending under control. while this does not do it and i agree this body, and it is not just in recent history, but over the years, this body has kicked the can down the road.

we are adding trillions of dollars of debt as we move lower. -- as we move forward. while this is a small movement, and it does not sound like much to get some to actually do it, and i know they are supposed to do a budget by law, but it was in the lot and there was no slap if you did not get it done. you are on will people and you do what the law requires. this is just saying to them, do your job. do your job. i do not know what the constitutional implications are. at the end of the day, if you look at the reason why this amendment was first put in place, it was because they did not want members of congress getting elected and getting a pay increase. that was the intent.

they postponed it, that you could vote for a pay increase, but it would not go into effect until the next congress. as we move forward, it is about getting the senate to get off their duff. i appreciate all of our members who spoke today. and joined the conversation as to how we get this country back. i appreciate you mr. chairman for allowing this discussion to go on and i yield back. >> when i had the wonderful duty a few years ago, i recognized it was an opportunity to engage administration, whether you agree or disagree, to give them an opportunity to hear congress about what we the people would be interested in funding, holding them accountable, giving them a chance to talk to us about the

needs they saw and to make sure we had a two-way dialogue. it is a real live document that our government needs if they were going to effectively work under the law with an understanding about what they were to produce and what results they had. i agree how important this is and our work today. that is why we are taking this time to do this. >> the ranking member brought the concept that she was glad to speak and the cuts were left out of this. i am disappointed the dollar for dollar cuts were not up part of this. i understand the reason it was left out.

i do have concerns about the fact that the debt limit was suspended. i hope that can be addressed in the next several hours before we vote on this legislation. i understand this is one step of a four-step process. i intend to support the legislation as it goes forward. i yield back. >> thank you. seeing that we have no further witnesses there before the committee on this issue, without objective, this portion of this meeting is now closed. the chair will now be receiving a motion. >> thank you. i move the committee grant hr- 325 until may 19, 2013. to insure the obligations of united states governmentthe rule provides one hour debate equally dividing and control of the

chair ranking minority members of the committee from ways and means and 20 minutes of equally divided control from the chair ranking minority member of the committee on house administration. the rule provides the amendments printed and the rules committee report shall be considered as adopted and the bill recommended shall be considered as read. the rule is against provisions in the bill amended. finally, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. >> i thank the gentlewoman. is there any discussion? >> all members have the opportunity to rule on the floor. i move that the committee grante hr-325. i do that in the spirit of the

conversation we have had here today. and also the conversation we have had here today that most shut out. given the opportunity to express themselves more about how they feel about the matter, i really urge we consider an open rule, with something as important as this. thank you. >> any further discussion? i would offer some bit of closed rule. its provides for one hour general debate. we will move it to the floor. we will allow the committee a chance to debate this. as the gentlewoman knows, this has a wide range of effects. i know the gentlewoman knows. this is a first step in what could be a longer process.

this is a straightforward bill that provides context to the house and the senate and this is just a first step in what could be a longer process. i would urge a no vote. hearing no further questions -- say aye. >> aye. >> we are voting on this amendment? >> we are. >> opposed? >> no.

>> the amendment is not agreed to. further amendments? seeing none, we will now vote. say eye. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> roll call, please. >> aye, aye, tye, aye, aye, aye, aye, no, no, no, aye.

>> 9 yeas, 3 nays. >> i will be handling this for the majority and mr. mcgovern will be handling this -->> i want to notify the committee that we do not expect any other meeting this week. with that being said, i want to thank the committee and the staff for their time today. i recognize there are a lot of things today. this hearing is closed. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> secretary of state hillary clinton testifies today about the september 11 attacks on the consulate in benghazi, libya that killed ambassador chris stevens and three other americans. secretary clinton appears before

the senate foreign relations committee and we will have live coverage on cspan 3 and at 2:00 eastern, secretary clinton testifies before the house foreign affairs committee and you concede that live on c-span 3 as well. -- you can see that live on c- span 3 as well. >> cspan, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> coming up today on c-span, "washington journal"is live with your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets. the u.s. house returns for work on legislation to suspend the federal debt ceiling until mid- may. in 45 minutes, the freshman democrat from nevada, will discuss his first term priorities. that will include spending, that will include spending,